Judge Restricts Campaign in Recall of Councilman

A Torrance Superior Court judge has ordered proponents of a recall effort against veteran Rolling Hills Estates City Councilman Jerome Belsky to cease alleging that Belsky has “tainted” the council’s image through improper business dealings in the city with other council members.

That allegation was contained in the recall petition that the five proponents filed with the city and were prepared to circulate for signatures.

Judge John P. Shook issued a temporary restraining order directing the five recall proponents not to publish the allegation or to circulate the petition with that language.

He ordered them to appear in court at 1:30 p.m. Tuesday for a hearing on a preliminary injunction sought by Belsky, which would order them to publicly retract the allegation as untrue and continue the ban on its use in the recall campaign.

“We were not attempting to enjoin the petition. People have a right to petition for recall,” said Jerome L. Bleiweis, the lawyer representing Belsky in a suit against the recall proponents. “We were simply asking that the defamatory language that appears in the petition be enjoined.”

The suit seeks damages from each of the five defendants for libel, invasion of privacy and infliction of emotional distress, but Bleiweis said that Belsky’s primary interest is to see that the statement is retracted and not repeated.

Jerome J. Karpel, attorney for recall leader Paul Edward Bradley Sr., declined comment. The suit also names recall proponents Sharon Dunfee, Joyce E. Barbour, Alexander M. Shemet and C. Elaine McNulty.

The statement, one of seven allegations against the councilman in the recall petition, alleges that Belsky “has tainted our council’s image by arranging with two other councilmen to invest in a business in our city. These investments raise the possibilities of conflict of interest, potential for violating the Brown Act by privately agreement among themselves on city business (especially city-connected opportunities that would nourish their investment).” (The Brown Act is a state law requiring that public agencies conduct business in open meetings.)

The two other council members alluded to are not named. The suit contains declarations from the four other Rolling Hills Estates council members saying that such a business arrangement does not exist.

Seeking Facts

Belsky said Wednesday that he does not know the defendants nor why they are seeking to recall him, and described the suit as a way to find out “what, and who, is behind this.”

In his official reply to the recall notice, Belsky said: “The statement that I conspired with other councilmen to defraud the city is absolutely false. I have directed my attorney to file suit for libel against the five petitioners and any other co-conspirator that may be discovered.”

Belsky, in an earlier interview said he, Councilman Hugh Muller and eight others have a bio-diagnostic agricultural research and development business. It is based in Long Beach and has no connection with the city, Belsky said.

In the recall petition, proponents charge in general that Belsky is “progressively destroying the respect and harmony” between city government and residents by, among other things, abusive behavior toward citizens.

In denying the charges, Belsky said he has “continuously volunteered time and energy to the city” during four years on the Planning Commission and 12 years on the council.

City Manager Raymond B. Taylor said he found two minor errors in the recall petition when he checked it for compliance with the state Election Code. Recall proponents have until next week to submit a corrected version to the city.